• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.23-46
• /
• 2021

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2007

This article has the objective of studying French ADR System which is unique and peculiar in the world. Nowadays commercial conflict is resolved by litigation or ADR. ADR plays an important part in resolving commercial conflict in the US, England, Germany, Japan and France. Untill now, only French ADR System has not been studied at all in Korea. So we can safely say that it is necessary to research into French ADR System in order to improve Korea's ADR System. This study is composed of Introduction, Concept of French ADR System, Actual Circumstances of French ADR System and Conclusion. The Fundamental system of French ADR is the law of February 8, 1995 that is made up of 82 articles. Among these articles, Judical Conciliation and Mediation are the most important. It is universally admitted by most of legal scholars that judicial conciliation and mediation have the character of contract. Because mutual consent is necessary in order for judicial conciliation and mediation to be effective. French system of judicial conciliation and mediation is provided in French Civil Procedure Law. Judicial conciliation plays an important role in Labor Law and Family Law. In the early part of litigation, the attempt of consiliation can be made very frequently in France. Successful conciliation and mediation are induced into negociation between parties. Arbitration has its long history in Europe. In the medieval times, Western European merchant began to use Arbitration System. After the medieval times had passed, Arbitration System took root in France. But Arbitration System has not so developed in France. On the other hand, Arbitration System has developed to a considerable degree in the US in spite of its short history. It is due to the fact that the French dislike to have recourse to litigation as compared with the Americans. However Arbitration can resolve securities conflict through various institutions in France, which is very similar to the concerned US phenomenon.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.99-123
• /
• 2018

Korean businesses engaging in transactions with U.S. entities are increasingly favoring arbitration clauses to address unexpected disputes. How best ought the parties' arbitration contractual terms be drafted to avoid lengthy, protracted and expensive legal disputes? Authors examine the public policy favoring arbitration through the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. Korean litigants seeking a "Motion to Compel Arbitration" rely on arbitration clauses designed to address four factors U.S. courts use to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration contract clauses. What role does U.S. state court jurisdiction hinder or help Korean businesses contracting with U.S. business entities located within certain boundaries? What is the effect of an arbitration clause that designates the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul to arbitrate? All cases analyzed entail Korean business entities. Eleven cases demonstrate the results of seeking motions to compel arbitration in U.S. courts. Three cases illustrate motions to compel arbitration drafted to use the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board in Seoul. The results provide Korean businesses and legal practitioners insight into addressing the specific goals of including contractual arbitration clauses to enhance their international commercial interests in the United States.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.107-132
• /
• 2019

The arbitration procedure, which is a private trial, does not have a separate enforcement agency. Therefore, unless a party consents to the arbitration award and voluntarily fulfills the award, its execution is accomplished through the implementation of the national court. In particular, the decision in the foreign arbitration procedure will be refused or rejected for the arbitration award in case the proceedings of the law and procedure on which the judgment is based are caused by inconsistency with the domestic law or procedural defect. However, all foreign arbitration awards generally do not have to go through the approval process, and it will come into force with the arbitration award. In the case of Germany in the revision of the German Civil Procedure Act of 1996, the main provisions of the New York Convention concerning the ratification and enforcement of arbitration proceedings are reflected. Germany provides for the arbitration procedures in the arbitration proceedings of Book 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. Particularly, with Article 1061 in Book 10 Section 8 below, the approval and enforcement of foreign arbitrators shall be governed. Article 1061 has been referred to as "The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Jurisdictions," Article 5 (1). The main reasons for approval and enforcement rejection are: (1) Reason for the acceptance or refusal of enforcement by request of the parties: Reason for failure of subjective arbitration ability, invalidation of arbitration agreement, collapse of attack or defense method, dispute not included in arbitration agreement, (2) Reasons for the approval and enforcement of arbitration considered by the competent authority of the arbitrator: violation of objective arbitration ability, violation of public order, but not based on the default of German statute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2011

This paper investigates on the legal doctrine of "voluntary, knowing, and intelligent" (VKI Doctrine). The main points that were discussed include the history of the VKI doctrine and the US courts' attitudes toward the doctrine. It was also discussed how the VKI doctrine influenced the protection of consumer who agreed to arbitrate with businesses. The US courts' attitudes have shown to be split in application of the VKI doctrine to disputes in the enforceability of arbitration agreement between the consumers and the businesses. In order for the arbitration agreement to be invalidated, the state legislature cannot enact law that are directly targeted toward the validity of arbitration agreement. Rather the contract law in each of the state should be applied to the evaluation of the validity of an arbitration agreement. As the more and more consumers become familiar with the arbitration, the need for the VKI doctrine to protect the individual consumers in arbitration is expected to be diminished in future disputes.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제25권
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2005

Arbitration is a creature of contract. The parties agree that selective dispute resolution clause provides them with a choice to litigate or arbitrate certain disputes. Under the agreements, the parties had the option in the action. In the event any dispute arises between the parties concerning our representation or payment of our fees and disbursements which cannot be promptly resolved to our mutual satisfaction, you agree that dispute will be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. The selective arbitration agreement has become an accepted method of dispute resolution. However, the trend of dispute settlement has changed. The selective arbitrations clauses are to be construed as broadly as possible, and arbitration will be compelled unless it may be said with positive assurance that arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.185-212
• /
• 2013

In this paper, a conceptual model of legal culture based on Ehrlich's "living law" theory and Cole's social-cultural explanation can explain the low utilization rates of arbitration of Japan and the high utilization rates of arbitration in the United States, simultaneously. This model highlights the clash between social norms and legal provisions in Japan. Japan has developed a two-tiered system of dispute resolution. At the official level, Japanese people accept the legal system imposed by the outside world. But, at a deeper level, they utilize diverse forms of informal dispute resolution mechanisms, such as reconcilement and conciliation, reflecting their own social norms. In contrast, there is no conflict between social norms and legal provisions in United States. This study may show that there are distinctions between American-style arbitration and Japanese-style arbitration, reflecting their own respective social norms. The question of reconciliation between the American style of arbitration and the Japanese style of arbitration can be resolved by an international arbitrator.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제64권
• /
• pp.99-128
• /
• 2014

Last year, Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center(SIDRC) was set up to facilitate and promote international arbitration in Korea. This study was focused on the revision of arbitration rules such as ICC, SIAC, HKIAC and JCAA. As a leading arbitration institution in the world, ICC has tried continuously to provide more efficient service to their client by adopting emergency arbitrator(EA) & multi party arbitration. Other three institutions also introduced almost same mechanism to compete each other. These two new system is very innovative in international arbitration. First of all, EA was designed to provide interim measure service to preserve or protect parties' right before the constitution of arbitral tribunal. Arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals should be careful to decide these requests are legitimate or not because too hasty approval on joinder or consolidation without full consideration such as parties' intention or argument may issue another serious problem - setting aside an award rendered after joined or consolidated.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.